We discussed the following hypothetical in the Key Concepts Lecture. You injured your friend and your friend needed stitches as a result. You brought your friend to get medical attention at a doctor’s office. While in the doctor’s office, a homicidal maniac opens fire and your friend is killed.  The causal chain in this hypothetical was broken by which factor?

Which of the following elements distinguishes the crime of robbery from the crime of larceny, based on the definitions discussed in California v. Williams?

According to the reasoning in Lee v. State, what allows for a shoplifting conviction before the defendant exits a store?

A state statute defines burglary as: “Entering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein” Which best describes the actus reus element in this statute?

In People v. Acosta (1991), the experts agreed that the helicopter that caused the crash engaged in reckless behavior. Explain why those negligent actions did not break the causal chain?

Alex and Gregory work at the same restaurant. Alex is a server and Gregory is a host. Gregory keeps seating multiple parties all at once in Alex’s section thereby overwhelming Alex and causing Alex to give his customers delayed service. Alex has spoken to Gregory multiple times about pacing better but Gregory keeps engaging in the same behavior. Alex loses his temper and swings a fist to hit Gregory. Alex misses and hits the customer standing right by Gregory. As a result of the swing, the customer suffers a broken nose. Alex is charged with Aggravated Battery. Even though Alex didn’t mean to hit the customer, he is still criminally responsible under which doctrine?

Generally the law does not criminalize a failure to act unless there is a legal duty saying otherwise. In the scenarios described below, which of the defendants did not have a legal duty to act?

Jimmy has epilepsy and is prohibited by law from driving. One morning he wakes up late. He doesn’t want to be late for work. If he takes the bus like he normally does, he will definitely be late for work. So he decides to take his roommate’s car and drive to work so he can still be on time. On the way, he has a seizure and the car crashes. In at least 100 words, explain whether Jimmy committed a voluntary act and why. Be sure to also define a voluntary act.

Which of the following best illustrates a crime with specific intent?

In Morissette v US, _____________ was not a sufficient mens rea to hold the defendant criminally responsible, but it was sufficient in Lambert v. California.